check_watches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the internal process but does not explicitly disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The honesty note and pricing info are present but do not replace behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the pricing note could be considered extraneous. Overall structure is clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description thoroughly explains the return value (alerts with observed value, reason, severity) and the internal process. It also includes a caveat about model reliability, making it complete for an agent to use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description repeats the schema's info about watch_id without adding new meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates lane watches against live modeled market and returns alerts that fired. It specifies the resource (watches) and action (check), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_watch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool: to check one watch by passing watch_id or all watches by omitting it. It also implies it's a daily poll. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but usage is clear for a single-purpose tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.